Deployment of IoT-Based Smart Demand-Side Management System with an Enhanced Degree of User Comfort at an Educational Institution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Main question addressed by the research

The paper deals with the deployment of an IoT - based Smart Demand Side Management System that connects the solar power line for some loads during peak hours to increase the degree of user comfort at an educational institution KCET located at India.

The authors implemented a real time system based in a hybrid BPSOGSA algorithm. The authors evaluate the performance of the hybrid BPSOGSA algorithm by comparing it with individual optimization algorithms BPSO and BGSA using MATLAB.

2. Relevance
The topic is relevant because of the growing need to reduce energy consumption and increase the comfort of the users of the facilities, an educational institution in this case.

3. Novelty
The novelty lies mainly in the presented case study applied to an Indian educational institution.

4. Methodology
The paper is well structured. The methodology followed is in accordance with the objectives set out in the paper and, in my opinion, does not need to be approached in any other way.

5. Conclusions
The conclusions reached by the authors are coherent with the work presented and respond adequately to the problem posed at the beginning of the paper.

6. References
The references used in the paper are, in my opinion, adequate and most of them are recent.

7. Mathematical background and figures.

The mathematical approaches, as well as the figures included in the paper are appropriate and in accordance with what is expected of this type of work. As recommendation, I would resize Fig 4 and 5 to show the same fonts sizes and overall aspect.

 

I hope these comments are helpful.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

The authors extend their due thanks to the reviewer for the thorough revision of the submitted manuscript. As per the suggestions, resized figures 4 and 5.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the paper is readable.

However, the "Research Gap" section should be improved by highlighting the uniqueness of KCET load profile in relation to that of other Indian institutions. Also, the authors should compare their work with other papers involving demand-side management using IoT devices in a typical Indian institution.

Moreover, Fig. 15 (first image from the left) is very difficult to read - kindly revise the figure.

Author Response

The authors express gratitude towards the reviewer for valuable comments to improvise the paper's quality. In response to the comments upgraded and highlighted the modified "Research Gap" context. Also improvised the quality of Figure 15.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Upon review of the document, I identified several areas that require improvement.

 1- the research question needs to be more clearly defined in order to be fully understood. It is also important to clarify the originality of the work and the research gap it aims to address.

 2- the abstract and conclusion sections should include numerical data to support the findings, rather than relying solely on relative values. Additionally, the abstract and introduction should provide background on the topic, explain the gap in existing research that the work aims to address, detail the motivations and goals of the study, and outline the methods and techniques used.

3-  There are not enough citations in the introduction section. Using the 5 key references in the introduction section, discuss a few sentences about the paper's topic and new state-of-the-art subjects.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9858871

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9932414

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8910379

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3529509

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/18/9213

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/828

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9329196

4-It is also necessary to describe the rationale behind the selection of evaluation criteria.

5-The quality of Figs must be enhanced.

 

6-The formulas were not clearly explained and need to be more thoroughly described and properly cited.

Author Response

Respected Review,

Kindly find the attachment for the rebuttal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been improved based on my comments